The cost of registration - A comparison is made between the increase in retention fees over 10 years and the cost of living, with references to Government policy.

The amendment to the Architects Act of June 2008 - Case Study 3, Part 1, giving an appraisal of the statutory regulations and describing the predicted early consequence: an increase in the human resources retained by the Board.

Parliamentary written replies - describing how the cost of retention has been disproportionate to the number of those on the register.

Conflicts of Interest : s.4(2A) of the Architects Act 1997 (as amended June 2008)

Case Study 3, Part 2 - in the public interest?

Case Study 3, Part 3 - the European Commission takes a view that "the UK authorities have transposed Directive 2005/36/EC in an incorrect manner".

Case Study 3, Part 4 - an unsatisfactory reply from the Department of Communities and Local Government is criticised by the inquiring architect.

Case Study 3, Part 5 - the Commission writes formally to the United Kingdom.

Case Study 3, Part 6 - a credibility gap emerges?

Case Study 3, Part 7 - New UK Regulations, but is the Directive itself lawful?

_________________________________________________________________________

The amendment to the Architects Act of June 2008

Regulations which came into force on 20 June 2008 established rules for the recognition of professional qualifications enabling migrants from the European Economic Area or Switzerland to register as architects in the United Kingdom. These regulations set out provisions for facilitating temporary and occasional professional services cross-border, and also provide for applicants seeking to establish themselves on a stable basis in the United Kingdom.

The Architects (Recognition of European Qualifications etc and Saving and Transitional Provision) Regulations may be found on the legislation page.  An appraisal of the Regulations may be found here ( pdf version for printing).

An early consequence

At the consultation stage for this amendment, AARUK expressed a concern about the cost of implementing the requirements of the Directive within the United Kingdom. This impact was described in the appraisal referred to immediately above which said:

... it is likely that as a result of the amendment of 2008 there will be a commensurate need to expand the human and other resources employed for giving effect to the additional activity prescribed for the Architects Registration Board to perform; and that the impact upon the annual fee which the Act enables the Board to demand is unlikely to be favourable to architects in the United Kingdom who, by application or retention, choose to become registrants on what, by the amendment, has become “Part 1” of the Register.

This prediction has clearly been borne out for in the autumn of 2008 the Board, having decided to increase its human resources, advertised not only for a Registration Manager to deal with, it is presumed, an expected increase in the number of registrations, but also for a European Affairs Executive.  AARUK estimates that the increase in the cost to Part 1 registrants will be in excess of £150k per annum while noting that in an Explanatory Memorandum given to Parliament as legislature, at paragraph 8 ("Impact") it was stated that there would be no additional cost to the Board, saying: "there are no identifiable adverse impacts as a result of these Regulations".

No mention was made there of the attendant costs set out in the Impact Statement attached to the Explanatory Memorandum for S.I. 2007 No. 2781, The European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2007.  Here it is clearly stated, but only with respect to those engaged in providing temporary services in the UK and therefore being registered in Part 2 of the Register, that additional costs were anticipated in the region of £60,000 (see page 15).  However, it is understood (November 2008) that since the amendment came into force, there has been not one Part 2 registration.

To Case Study 3, Part 2

[ top][ front page]